V'rel Vusoryn's page

If you start the MMORPG.com hyping be prepared for a heavy negative influx of "haters" that will troll 24/7. Especially of the PVPing variety who will come and point out how PFO PvP is "carebear" and how their PVP game is real PvP.

Just saying. Been a member of that site since 2004.

Nihimon wrote:

DeciusBrutus wrote:

Take my hand and we'll make it, I swear.

*Nihimon grasps his chest*

Shot through the heart!

What does love's reputation have to do with being halfway there?

It's all the same, only the names have changed.

Ahh, the drink of celebration! Rum!

*mixes up a bowl of fruit punch*

Kryzbyn, Tetrix -

When I look at TSR and Wizards, and other gaming companies, I see a cautionary tale that's worth thinking about in this moment.

I'm raising these questions in the community that Paizo has created because I feel welcome here.

I'm doing it civilly, with an open mind, and I'm not being divisive. And I'm not shouting that the sky is falling.

If supporters of the MMO begin suggesting that only people who agree with them are welcome to express their views here, that will be divisive.

- Marsh

Well, you'll have to understand that it is irksome to have to see yet another concerned table top player come in to express his worries that resemble the same worries that guy #184 expressed last week. It's not to say you aren't welcome here but your concerns (as none of them weren't items we haven't heard before and addressed) ring akin to the passengers in the back continuously asking "are we there yet?" for many here.

Per the question asked to you, I have yet to see an answer for a TT company that folded because they made an attempt at an MMO. With respect to Wizards I'd fully argue that their loss in credibility had to do with Eberron being the next big setting and the release of 4th edition (for which they have essentially apologized for when they announced wanting fan input for the creation of this next addition).

Dungeons & Dragons Online (DDO) suffered because it was a) in a new setting that was not familiar, and b) because it was not a wide open explorable world where players could own land, build kingdoms and all of the other mature aspects of table top gaming that aren't just hack and slash. If DDO had been set in the Forgotten Realms and had the gameplay that PFO is working on it would have been much better received.

Paizo, in my view, really doesn't have any other competition in the high fantasy TTRPG genre. Wizards would have been but they gambled on a themepark TT design for D&D 4 and it blew up on them. I bet the folks at Paizo see the lead they have in this genre and aren't interested in giving up any ground. I doubt the TT portion will lose any steam and products will continue to come out as normal.

Ryan Dancey wrote:

@Carlos Cabrera - I would say "no". The player took the risk of losing those items when he decided not to Thread them. The mechanism of that loss isn't griefing.

That's a fair point, but I am also curious as to why items left on a corpse are even destroyed at all, particularly in a persistent world.

It's of course standard practice for mobs (kill it, leave what you don't want, it respawns), but what purpose does it serve when applied to players? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know this is unprecedented in an MMO. Items have always been left on player corpses for you to recover unless they're taken, with the exception of games that do not have a player-to-player loot system.

What Keovar said above me.

Also, I wouldn't say it was totally unprecedented. Asheron's Call 1 had a system in which when you died you left anywhere from 3 to 5 of the most expensive items on your corpse. If you did not make it back to your corpse to retrieve them in time, the corpse decayed and so with it those items. This brought about a demand for so-called "death items" which were mundane loot that do to the RNG was assigned a very high pyreal (the currency) value and as such would be likely to drop on your corpse rather than some other piece of gear you actually needed.

Like I said, not exactly the same but close in that items left on corpse went away permently if precautions (death items [AC], Threading[PFO]) were taken.

So you may not directly admit that your stance is "anyone playing anything but a lawful good play style needs to be treated like the absolute worst garbage possible", but that's only because you don't see the very obvious differences in degrees. So from the perspective of anyone who can see those degrees, that's your stance.

So, then, from the perception of those who see murder as murder, your stance is you want lax laws as to passively encourage continuous deviant* behavior.

Cool. I guess stances are cleared up now. Interesting.

Anyway, I've got to go make a couple of Warhammer Fantasy army lists for some gaming tonight. Take care!

Nobody suggested any encouragement, just degrees of punishment to match degrees of deviance. That was explained to you and you objected. If that's not what you actually meant, then you're just being stubborn about whatever point you think you're making.

Wait, are we done? Your last post made it seem like you were through with talking with me. It seemed a little exasperated.

Okay, just like lying by omission, lax laws or laws with no teeth encourage deviant* behavior. Sure, it may not be blatant proactive prodding, but it is pushing nonetheless.

Again, you may see degrees in your example, I do not. Just as Nihimon and another pointed out. We three see just plain ole murder, as was explained to you.

Point: Murder or deviant* behavior shouldn't be encouraged by lax laws in places where that type behavior isn't wanted.

V'rel Vusoryn wrote:

Blaeringr wrote:

And a person who has to deal with the shock of being murdered and then resurrected once is not dealing with anywhere near the same shock of someone who is constantly being hounded and killed over and over by the same person.

Again, a consequence of their deviant* actions. I don't feel any sorrow for them as they knew society's rules and chose to break them. That to me is consent to the repercussions of the socially accepted laws of the land. Going easy on them or providing circumstances that encourage them to do it again would be counter to law and good.

Alright, so we're clear on your stance: anyone playing anything but a lawful good play style needs to be treated like the absolute worst garbage possible. Gotcha.

Now Blaeringr, I didn't say that. Come on now. I myself don't intend to play LG. Just being objective laws are their to punish deviant* behavior, not encourage it.

I guess we are done discussing this then. Thanks for the chat! :D

And a person who has to deal with the shock of being murdered and then resurrected once is not dealing with anywhere near the same shock of someone who is constantly being hounded and killed over and over by the same person.

Again, a consequence of their deviant* actions. I don't feel any sorrow for them as they knew society's rules and chose to break them. That to me is consent to the repercussions of the socially accepted laws of the land. Going easy on them or providing circumstances that encourage them to do it again would be counter to law and good.

In the real world, killing is killing, yes. But in a world overflowing with resurrection, no.

It's not a matter of having resurrection or not. If player A punches player B in the face and then hands them a cookie, Player B, though he/she may love cookies, is still going to be pained from the right cross they just took.

So yeah, a person may resurrect, but they still have to deal with the shock of being murdered and quite possibly having some of their stuff taken. That sense of being wronged persists.

You don't see a difference between PvP choosing random targets for the same of wealth versus specifically targeting the same person over and over versus taking out newbs at the spawn point?

Really?!

No, I really don't. They are the same base deviant* behavior. That said I fully believe a player should be able to carryout either or, but I'm not going to whitewash or champion one as being better or more wholesome than the other.

@V'rel depends what you mean by griefing. If we look at the following continuum, Goblinworks is presently aiming to treat all point below the first three as the same, which seems absurd for a game advertised as open PvP:

...

Just because it is advertised as open PvP doesn't mean it is open Jack Donkey too. A player has the option to attack a person in the ways you listed. That doesn't mean they are free from consequence.

1) The Consequences should matter;
2) The Consequences should seem a bit unfair because they are the result to breaking socially accepted laws
3) Deviant behavior, as generally defined by a given society, should not be encouraged or made glamorous except in Deviant societies.*

I just find it odd that folks who would engage in said deviant behavior wouldn't expect there to be harsh punishment for their actions. It should be considered part of the territory.

*Based on the absolute definitions of Good vs Evil in PFO.

And the bounty system as it currently exists is, in my mind, overly harsh to apply to those conditions.

Not if you just issue a bounty once, no. But the way the blog describes it as something that can go on forever and have you constantly on the run no matter how many times you've already been punished is crazy.

So, a griefer being killed is punishment to them? I thought they were supposed to like combat, pvp and all that fighting stuff. If anything it should be a boon as they are, as long as the reporter has money, guaranteed to be hunted and have that added risk vs. reward excitement.

@Kafi

Agree with you 100% :)

Ideally I'd like the person to realize what they said that was offensive but I do agree that trying to get them to realize that on forums is most often futile. Yes, it isn't necessary for a great community but it seems a disservice to them and open for them to then determine that they are being persecuted. Idealistic me? Probably.

@Decius

Yep, that's probably the best thing to do considering our forum options.

@Valkenr

Aye. I do like that system where I've seen it used.

@Mogloth

Noted! *sneaks across yard one more time* :D

Welcome to corner of the realm Chiassa!

...

<shortened quote to jump into point, not to be rude :P>

So it seems where you and I differ is how that example goes is the saving face part. To me that's just an extension of the "everyone gets a trophy" phenomena that has been plaguing western society and filtering out to the rest of the world over the last 15 years.

You either win or place. Trophies for 1st, 2nd and 3rd. No participation trophies. Tell the kid to try harder next time.

Same here, you're wrong or you're right. No saving face. Humility. Admit you're wrong and move on. When you try to save face the other person isn't going to a) really accept your apology) and b) let it go.

Somewhere somehow personal responsibility for ones actions became a bad thing or was misplaced. Now days its okay for a person to admit they are wrong...as long as it isn't me. Frankly, that attitude stinks. It won't get you anywhere in the real world, that's for sure. Somewhere, someday, someone is going to severely work you over if you have trouble saying "I apologize, I was wrong", and leaving it at that.

I contend that in both of your examples above...that if he makes the apology without the saving face part, it is accepted and the issue forgotten. Where this fails, though, is that after that has happened, people who are late comers to the discussion adding their 2 cents in such a way that only flames the fires. Especially after an apology, 3 hours later you get "He shouldn't have had to apologize. Freedom of speech, blah blah blah <insert rant that only applies to American rights on a forum that has international membership>".

Ostracizing a member of the community for making a single comment, even if it were passionately spiteful, is unacceptable. People make mistakes. You are not going to 'educate' somebody on how to be an upstanding member of the community by ostracizing them. It is more likely to harden their heart from what you are trying to say and invite others to support them.

Yes, but that person gets to choose whether they are ostracized or not. As I said above when multiple folks say "Hey, that wasn't cool" and the person chooses not to apologize unequivocally, but instead say to the effect "I'm sorry, but you shouldn't be so sensitive"...Then they can and may be over just one comment.

That person has to show that they are mature enough to see what they did and own it. THey have to show that it was a one time thing, I believe.

I happen to disagree that "letting it go" is the answer. I've known quite a few people over the years who decided to not bother with PnP games or MMOs because of the attitude and culture that is there. Several of them are outstanding roleplayers who got sick of hearing the same jokes, or same style of jokes, every time they showed up.

I think the value of people is far more important than the value of an ill thought out joke.

If we took the same line towards griefers in PFO (let it go), no one would take us seriously. Why, then, is "let it go" the appropriate answer for jokes or comments that are personally offensive?

Which was one of my points in the other thread. Male "locker room" humor belongs just there, in the boys locker room. Though many would say that isn't a safe place for it anymore. It certainly doesn't belong on a game forum, not in this day and age.

I can't agree that letting it go is the right thing, initially. If a person isn't socially aware enough to know that what they are about to say could possibly offend someone, then it rightfully should be pointed out to them. Maybe they will learn, often times they won't.

Now, here is the pivot point. If they acknowledge the issue, apologize without trying to save face, THEN it needs to be let go.

More often than not, though, you get some half arsed apology with "ifs" and "buts" and a quip or two that suggests the offended has flaws in that they can't take a joke. Those people are Socially Immature (Dr. Robert Kegan, Harvard, The Evolving Self, 1982) in most cases. There is no point in trying to get them to see how they could have offended, not on a forum anyway and especially as regular forum folk.

In this latter case once the person continues the pattern of behavior, again because in their mind they are doing no wrong, then just flag them and let normal admin take course. If a person isn't willing to see their faults when pointed out to them by multiple individuals who aren't affiliated and have no personal gain out of speaking up, there usually, again, is very little their peers can do to change their way of thought.

That's my opinion anyway based on life experience and university.

Well one could point out v'rels comment about this being little boy humor for starters. I didn't see any outrage from Jessica nor Crystal on that. In fact, I see one person liked it so after I post this ill check who that was. Oh, and not to mention the not so subtle pummeling that I should get over the comment.

Oh and he makes note that not everything is a boob joke. You are correct sir, but the context I was joking of was about "boob armor". Again, not my term.

1) It was "little boy" humor as it's the kind of thing said by little boys. I know, I once was one. Spade is a spade.

2) Within society as a whole it is pretty much accepted that comments, even under the guise of "just a joke" made about gender, race, religion, color, creed, and often politics are best not said as they lead to conflict, evidence what you stirred up here because in your mind if it didn't offend you it's obviously okay to just say it aloud.

Based on your responses here you have missed the point Jessica made (you thought it was your saying boob armor when it was instead you suggesting that all females not wearing it were griefing you) and missing my point here (It's not the boob joke part of what I said, it's the need by a large portion of male gamers to always say something witty or try to be funny)..based on those responses I'd have to believe that you just say stuff and truly don't have a clue that what you say may be construed as offensive.

Every "apology" you gave was a defensive one with "ifs" and "maybes". The high, mature road of just saying "I'm sorry if I offended anyone" and leaving it at that seems to elude you. That or you just don't give a crap...I don't know which is worse.

V'rel Vusoryn wrote:

Is it planned to have a "retrieve all" button when looting corpses in general. If so will that mechanic be intelligent enough to claim as many items from your kill up to just below your encumbrance allowance or will it just pop a message saying that there is too much to pick up, thus you have to drag/drop loot.

I hope this is only available for the owner of the corpse/husk and not for the looters of said corpse. That means just click and loot. Let the owner be able to loot everything (or have it the same for all) but having a loot all button for the looter, no please!

Overall, this is an interesting thread, this should keep some worries away from those afraid of losing gear in PvP/PvE.

I don't know that I have a real strong opinion either way. I had no issue, once I got my "technique" down, of looting others in Ultima Online where you had to drag/drop anything you wanted. Reagents were a pain in the rear, though, and people learned to bury their most prized items under stacks of junk which made it interesting. The packs were free placement, not neat little slots like modern MMOs (which I think I like better.

It doesn't seem like, based on the encumbrance bit, that a given player will be able to full loot non-threaded items from much more than one or two near full encumbered persons. Course that is a guesstimate and will have to wait and see real numbers. But if that were true I don't think I'd mind a "retrieve all" button. After all they still have to wait 6 seconds before they can start looting anyway.

Is it planned to have a "retrieve all" button when looting corpses in general. If so will that mechanic be intelligent enough to claim as many items from your kill up to just below your encumbrance allowance or will it just pop a message saying that there is too much to pick up, thus you have to drag/drop loot.

Additionally will their be varying levels of encumbrance that slow your run/walk speed in relation to how encumbered you are? Will encumbrance affect melee combat? Crafting? Casting?

Jessica Price wrote:

But a statement that women should be suspended for choosing less scanty costumes, even uttered in jest, implies that I only have a place in the game if I am providing you with visual gratification. I don't play games to provide you with gratification. I play them to play games. That's my personal objection.

As a contribution to an exclusionary environment, it also potentially drives away new players of different backgrounds, genders, orientations, etc., which is counter to supporting the success of this project. That's my professional objection.

Sorry but I have a hard time believing you can make it through a single day in the real world if you are that sensitive. This seems like the actions of somebody who was circling this thread purposefully looking to pounce on anyone who came remotely close to something sexist/homophobic.

I vote for a thread lock, this wasn't going to end any other way.

Thread does not need to be locked. The issue was handled, and for the record I disagree with the assessment of Avari of the situation. Sure, what was said was most surely said in jest, but having been on game forums for 15+ years now when is the time that this "little boy" humor stops? Everything doesn't have to be funny. Everything doesn't have to be a boob joke.

Believe me, I've said my share of them. Was in the Army for a good while. That said, and strangely on topic, as I mentioned earlier in this thread is that it's not only straight white males playing these games now. People need to THINK before they open their traps. When your "joke" has a qualifier of a trait that belongs to another human being, best keep it to yourself and immediate friends that you know won't take offense.

They don't, however, and say what they want because the internet prevents one thing: the other person punching you in the face for saying it.

Lol it's a joke. I thought the whole direction of the discussion was definitely odd anyways, discussing the whole logistics of hammering out n refitting plate for different players.

Probably should keep your gender (or race, religious, political) jokes to yourself. Just saying. When they call the attention of a Project Manager (or any other forum admin type) then your joke most likely was not funny or appropriate.

I would like settlement charters(SC's) to be able to determine who can use what.

If there are 'slots' for anything like crafting in EVE, I would like SC's to be able to reserve a certain number of slots for groups in their charter.

So If There are 100 slots, and I have 50 members in my settlement, I can reserve 50 of the slots for my members only, and rent out the others to the public.

I would like to be able to set up time schedules for how much it costs to train in my facilities, so i can turn up the prices during peak hours, or on weekends and holidays.

I want to be able to go in and control which people have access to which facilities at what times and how much they pay.

I want it to be easy to set up and run well, but have a ton of more advanced options to really refine what you want. Kinda like PhPbb3, quick to get started, but you can do a lot with it when you go into the more advanced details.

I agree that settlement leaders should have this level of flexibility in governing their settlements. The options should allow for a settlement to completely shut itself off to outside entities, disallowing them use of its facilities sum total as well as entrance (by having guards attack on sight; sneaky types should still have a chance sneak in and do their thing based on skills).

A settlement should be allowed to be as closed as that, or as open as anyone and everyone can enter and make use of facilities.

I think it important to have have those filters cover alignment, reputation, CC membership, CC's alignment and Reputation, Criminal record, Settlement residency, Settlement's Alignment and Reputation (if character is from another settlement) and any other Social Status qualifiers that can be used gate entrance.

I think the beauty of this game is we will be in the "endgame" from the start.

The "endgame" activities are, being a part of a community that evolves based on your actions, building things, running businesses, waging wars, interacting with other players, roleplaying, exploring, trading, being a bandit, hunting bandits, being a soldier, leading soldiers etc. The term the developers keep giving us is "Meaningful player interaction."

But guess what you'll be doing while you push towards the "endgame"? The exact same thing. True you may not be a strong, you may not have as much money, and you may not be able to build quite as neat of things. But you can start doing the kind of activities you want to take part in from the moment you step into this game's world.

I like this explanation and have used it many times talking to other friends about sandbox games in general and PFO in particular. Especially to friends who have never played a sandbox style game like Ultima Online, EvE and (pre NGE) SWG.

Chip is a good guy. Known him most of my life. He was our main architect for city building in our SWG guild. He does like to build, lol!

@V'rel Vusoryn - the cost of everything you get with a subscription will be higher if you buy it ala carte via micro transactions.

Hmm, well, I guess that's the missing piece(s), then. So far I've only seen training time as part of what you get. It's everything else a subscription entails that I'm not seeing.

Are you (GW) prepared to talk about that at this time? I assume no as it would have been in the OP. If it is mentioned elsewhere then someone please direct me as it seems I have rolled a 1 on Perception.

V'rel Vusoryn wrote:

I guess I'm not seeing any point to paying a subscription, then, after Release if all it does is grant access to the game for which you don't have to pay for anyway?

Unless you're saying the Microtransaction system is to allow folks to purchase game time in an "as they go" and that the store is its own other thing that you buy consumables from that make the game easier.

Which if that's the case why even offer subscriptions if we can essentially just pay for the time we are logged in? Who wouldn't do that?

A subscription turns on skill training, even when you're not logged in. Buying time isn't referring to login time... you can sit around all day using a safe town as a graphical chatroom, but your skills don't get better without a sub. or buying training time.

Which only changes my question slightly in that if I have trained all the skills I need/want then why have a subscription? At that point I can just purchase the requisite amount of time I need if I have to retrain because skills got nerfed or changed in such a manner they are no longer desirable.

I guess I'm not seeing any point to paying a subscription, then, after Release if all it does is grant access to the game for which you don't have to pay for anyway?

Unless you're saying the Microtransaction system is to allow folks to purchase game time in an "as they go" and that the store is its own other thing that you buy consumables from that make the game easier.

Which if that's the case why even offer subscriptions if we can essentially just pay for the time we are logged in? Who wouldn't do that?

Will those choosing the monthly subscription route receive a monthly "allowance" of Skymetal from which to purchase these mounts in the store?

Yeah, I wondered about that a few weeks ago, but figured since it was said that the plan was to eventually host separate forum from here it was seen as trivial. That said it takes all of a few seconds to do, would show GW site drive bys that there is a community building and possibly lead to more in crowdfunding.

*shrugs*

I know quite a few of the Reaper folks as I live about 2 miles down the road from their HQ. I see them at local grocery stores and various other places gamers go here in Denton. They are indeed good people which is why I go to Reaper Con every Year.

Indeed, Ryan you guys should make some kind of showing at Reaper Con the next two years (and beyond?). We loved having Sean R. down and it's always good to see Pathfinder folks down this way.

Edit: Oh, and I'll make the same offer I made Cliffhanger Productions with Shadowrun Online (they partnered with Reaper for minis). If you do make a showing and have a booth/table or whatever I'll volunteer to help if needed. Again I live 2 miles from the HQ and have a fairly wide open schedule.

@Lee

I would suggest making the window max out at 12 hours for the full index. Warhammer Online showed us what happens in 24hr PvP, groups never fight face to face, they organize a super late night/early morning attacks.

...

Yup, this is exactly what will happen.

I really want to know alot more on how the magic system will be handled now. I can already see people spamming Detect Evil/Good on everyone they meet outside settlements.

I would hope that GW would represent the Human races from pasty white to dark as night just as the PFRPG does. I think that is one of the great parts about PFRPG and at this day and age it isn't only white males rolling dice.

Indeed the RPG gaming scene is alot more colorful these days. While it is pretty much a given that people of European and Asian heritage play RPGs, believe it or not there are a large percentage of people of African heritage that play RPGs too.

So yes, please pass this on to the skin palette team and if racial bonuses or the like make it in that team as well. Please use the entire palette as represented in the actual Campaign books. If a race makes it into the game, then make sure all variations that are represented in PFRPG are in PFO.

V'rel Vusoryn wrote:

Onishi, you're drilling down and going into areas that, while are valid, are totally missing the premise of my point. My point being a high level, a macro level and you went micro.

Onishi wrote:

Well I suppose I'm missing your higher level macro point then, on any level, things that are easy to do, can be done safer etc... suffer from high amounts of overubundane within the worlds. As a result profit per time spent, is drastically lower.

I am missing it, too, I think.

If something is easy to get, then more people will get it. This will impact the market.

If they vary the time that it takes to harvest different things they may be able to offset the commonality of some activities, but only to a degree.

Well, one notion I want to address is the assumption that just because a given action is performed in a PvP area it is somehow automatically harder to do than in an area where the police respond faster. This assumes that everytime that action is performed they are attacked which is not true. Thus the majority of the time, and even more so now after reading Lee Hammock's post, the action is of equal difficulty.

My point: If player A works long and consistently mining X in the "safer" area he should be able to make as much coin from his efforts over time as Player B mining Y in the "less safe" area.

They may not be harvesting or crafting the exact same thing, but all craftable items should have some measure of sustained demand. Additionally the items from resource Y should not always have more value than those from resource X. Ideally they should fluctuate so that during different periods or in different situations each has a chance to be preferable.

Loose example, but let's say iron is X and gold is Y. Gold typically is more sought after and assigned a higher monetary price. Yet if there is a war going on Iron may be more valuable at that time to make weapons and armor. Gold is terrible to make weapons and armor with. Sure, you may use gold to buy Iron weapons, but ultimately it is the iron at that time that is most valuable.

V'rel Vusoryn wrote:

Both Rabbits have value but they are used for separate crafting goals. You make 100gp selling 20 Golden Rabbits and I make 100gp selling 30 Chocolate Rabbits.

One thing your rabbit analogy dosn't take into account. You aren't crafting for NPCs, you are crafting for PCs. Supply/demand economics kick in. Something commonly available near town in safe areas, will likely not be desired. People will not likely pay extremely high prices for it. The more people who can do X, who are doing X etc... the lower the value of X.

Second, weaker items in game, also suffer deflation faster than the better weapons, IE tons of X weapon that deals 10 damage are on the market, one weapon deals 12 damage, The demand is going to be on the 12 damage item, thus it's price is going to be skyrocketing, The 10 weapon, is on the other hand, beign produced, but nobody is buying it, their prices hit the floor, and not only are they marked down to extremely cheap, but they also are selling at an excruciatingly slow pace.

Onishi, you're drilling down and going into areas that, while are valid, are totally missing the premise of my point. My point being a high level, a macro level and you went micro.

You set up a premise, I asked a question.
I am trying to figure out where you are coming from. If you see that as an attack, then this isn't going to be very productive.

Let's see what I was responding to...

I did not accuse you of an attack. I merely requested a ground rule for the discussion, that being the use of general terms as has been done by everyone else in this thread so far. I guess i should have just stated a caveat to not assume you (since you want to use personal descriptors) know what my thoughts on PVP itself are.

I posted previously that you could set up a merchant enterprise without ever setting foot outside of a safe area.
...

I completely understand everything you noted in this second section. I'm not sure where you were headed with this one. I will take a stab and answer that my point was merely about those staying in safer areas still being able to comparable profit. So say you operate in less safe areas and make your coin from capturing Golden Rabbits. I decide to work in a safer area where there are no Golden Rabbits but there are Chocolate Rabbits.

Both Rabbits have value but they are used for separate crafting goals. You make 100gp selling 20 Golden Rabbits and I make 100gp selling 30 Chocolate Rabbits.

People's perception will vary.

I agree, they will. The cheating part is a tough one, but not one that couldn't be worked out with testing. As for the rest of this section I'll decline from commenting as it goes a direction (shrinking less safe area and increasing safer areas) that I never hinted at nor suggested.

Players can not be AI and AI can not be players.

That was supposed to read "There might even be a few players who could BEAT such an AI too. But that number would be tiny." Typo, my mistake.

V'rel Vusoryn wrote:

This won't work. Talking about being easy to exploit and thus grief. You run by and ask me to buff you while I'm talking to Andius next to a bridge. Being a nice guy I do. Then you turn around and gank Andius, thus flagging me when I had no intent to attack Andius.

That is another form of griefing. Now, if in turn I can (D) dispell/drop those buffs I just gave you, buff Andius mid fight and in turn attack and kill you for trying to get away with something like that, then cool.

Dispelling/Dropping the buffs would have to be on a timer of some sort, to prevent from just dropping them at the moment of kill. But I am going to play devil's advocate on this one, and state that that your situation is not abuse of the rules and does not constitute griefing. This is someone tricking you and making you an unwitting accomplice. It does not cause a wholesale disruption to a zone, like the situation I presented. And you'll learn your lesson after it happens once, won't you? You are fully empowered to prevent it from happening in the future by siply not buffing unknown strangers who might turn around and try to murder people right next to you.

And Andius could just, you know. Not put a bounty on you. Even if you were eligible for one.

Then your example with Platedewed is no different. You tried to leave that example as ambiguous as possible but in truth PD had no idea what the other guy was going to do so therefore he isn't griefing. Just because he "lol" once he was told doesn't make him a griefer. If he continues to buff the other guy, then sure. Your example does not state that he does continue buffing the same guy so one can also infer that he learned what this guy's intentions were and won't buff him again.

Andius wrote:

If the buff-caster is within 10 yards at the initiation of combat, the buffs do not dispel, but the person is also subject to bounties/alignment shift/penalties/whatever.)

This won't work. Talking about being easy to exploit and thus grief. You run by and ask me to buff you while I'm talking to Andius next to a bridge. Being a nice guy I do. Then you turn around and gank Andius, thus flagging me when I had no intent to attack Andius.

That is another form of griefing. Now, if in turn I can (D) dispell/drop those buffs I just gave you, buff Andius mid fight and in turn attack and kill you for trying to get away with something like that, then cool.

Welcome aboard Avari!

Quote:

Look, I get it. I'm not naive, and this isn't exactly my "first trip to the MMO in development rodeo" here. The same cycle always repeats itself.

#1 The game is announced, and people start flocking to it.
#2 PVP advocates show up in droves, and the fact that this group tends to be very vocal means that there is a disproportionate showing of support for that aspect of the game.
#3 The developers cave in, and sacrifices to content or playability of PVE are made to accomodate them.
#4 The game finally launches.
#5 PVP Oriented servers are huge for the first month or two, and then as the fact that it is impossible to balance apples with oranges, the "<x> class is completely overpowered" things start happening.
#6 Developers cave in, and start making drastic changes to classes and class abilities to reduce their effectiveness in PVP (see also: "Nerfing") that destroys the desirability of these classes for PVE content.
#7 The PVP players continue to complain, moving from class to class.
#8 As more classes get crippled and players begin losing interest in the game, the PVP players start having less targets to "PVP" with.
#9 Word begins to spread, and a movement starts because word gets out that "oh, <BrandNewGame> is being developed, and PVP is going to be the main focus of the game and it's going to be so much better than this game."
#9 Go to Step #1.

Been following PFO since day 1 and:

1) PFO has from the start been marketed as open world PvP
2) PFO has been talked about as a single server game akin to EvE, always.

No sacrifices to PvE or content have been made yet. If they have stated anything counter to 1 and 2 then it was done is such an unimportant manner and location that would make the thoughts seem trivial.
So I don't think it fits your listed process.

V'rel Vusoryn wrote:

In low risk areas there will be no shortage of people willing to harvest whatever resource.

Resources located in higher risk areas are going to have fewer people working them.

The result is that they could put a diamond and gold mine in a safe zone and a copper mine out in no man's land, and copper would end up being more valuable than gold or diamonds absent some market manipulation.

Nothing is stopping a player from becoming a wealthy merchant that has never left the city/safe areas, but expecting to be able to harvest everything for yourself without ever setting foot outside of the city/safe areas is unrealistic, I think.

If it is all right there for everyone to grab at little or no risk, then how is any of it valuable?

Your proclaimed willingness to fight against AI (and claiming that they could make smarter AI for just that purpose) for resources but not other players just makes me ask why?

I never stated that I expect players to be able to harvest everything for themselves alone. If that is what you perceived , well, as with Andius, that is unfortunate. It's not my stance, however. I only stated that a person operating in safer (there are no safe zones as I understand it) should be able to make a comparable fortune. It may not be in the Copper trade, but might be in the Green Beans trade.

Risk, or perceived risk especially when talking PvP, should not be the defining article of wealth.

As for the AI matter, let's not make this personal. As far as I know I have never discussed my personal view on PvPing with you. Lets talk in generals. That established my point was that trying to make out that PVP's "riskiness" is grounds for generating more wealth in my view is false as an AI can be created that puts up an tougher fight (read: even more risk) than the majority of humans. Developers choose not to do so, but it can be done. (and no, I'm not suggesting they do so with PFO, I'm just pointing the fact out)

V'rel Vusoryn wrote:

There are other avenues they can spend said money and frankly it is only their business what they are. This can't be about only what you want. There are other folks out there that want gameplay mechanics that won't affect you (A player that wants to spend time building a sword making business and becoming rich off it so he/she can throw lavish parties) that completely justify them making tons of cash that have nothing, immediately, to do with PVP.

They are playing the game a different way that is no less valid than PvPing and as such should not be hampered in their goals to earn coin.

Quite frankly there are plenty of games not catered to Open World PVP. You can't effectively woo an Open World PVP and a "I never want to see PVP EVER unless I consent to it!!!" crowd at the same time. You're right it isn't just about me but the devs have a consistent pattern of straying away from features that will diminish our PVP experience. Allowing players hidden from PVP to make massive profits is such a feature. I would like to remind you that I am arguing in favor of a quote of Ryan's that Nihimon posted.

This game will allow PVEers and crafting enthusiasts and really offer them a lot of great features. We have a community and developers that are ready to make sure those players get something other than a griefer filled gankfest but you WILL have to deal with occasional non-consentual PVP. Anyone who can't handle that... I'm sorry but this isn't Harvest Moon Online, and it is simply not the game for you.

Edit: Oh wait Nihimon couldn't find the quote?! What's the matter? Are you ok????

I think it is pretty well known that the intent is to have "safer" areas but there is the possibility to be attacked anywhere. At least that is the point from which I am talking. If you read "I never want to see PVP EVER unless I consent to it!!!" in anything I've written then that is an unfortunate perception. I'm not coming from that angle.

That said someone who chooses to operate in the safer areas should be able to make their fortunes there and be as wealthy as anyone elsewhere. They may not have the exact same things, but comparable. I stand by that.

Decius' post above this one illustrates my stance very, very well.

V'rel Vusoryn wrote:

[]If anything, just an off the cuff, those people could be RPing a faction that finances wars in the PvPing areas. While they themselves have no interest in PvPing, they simply might enjoy the idea of being "gunrunners" who provide the means for those who like to get dirty to do so.

There are other RP examples out there as well. Bottom line is that it can ba another faucet that spills into every other facet of the game if the plumbing allows the avenue for such creative RP.

My point is I don't want people sitting in the safe areas making a killing and then dumping that money into war resources for their buddies or alts. If there is a major source of funding backing someone I am at war with, I want the option to destroy that source off funding and cut the gravy train off. If you want to effect Open World PVP then it needs to effect YOU.

There are other avenues they can spend said money and frankly it is only their business what they are. This can't be about only what you want. There are other folks out there that want gameplay mechanics that won't affect you (A player that wants to spend time building a sword making business and becoming rich off it so he/she can throw lavish parties) that completely justify them making tons of cash that have nothing, immediately, to do with PVP.

They are playing the game a different way that is no less valid than PvPing and as such should not be hampered in their goals to earn coin.

My big question would be why do people living in high sec areas need to make as much money as those in low sec ones? They don't have to worry about wars, replacing lost gear, rebuilding destroyed structures, hiring mercenaries, placing bounties, hiring assassins etc. Plain and simple Open World PVP is a resource dump.

If you aren't taking part in it you don't need to generate extra resources to dump into it, and allowing you those extra resources to dump into a war you take no part in simply unbalances things. For that reason I would like the economic opportunities in high sec kept very limited.

If anything, just an off the cuff, those people could be RPing a faction that finances wars in the PvPing areas. While they themselves have no interest in PvPing, they simply might enjoy the idea of being "gunrunners" who provide the means for those who like to get dirty to do so.

There are other RP examples out there as well. Bottom line is that it can ba another faucet that spills into every other facet of the game if the plumbing allows the avenue for such creative RP.

V'rel Vusoryn wrote:

... PFO would do well to take a few notes from SWG (pre NGE). There is a reason its crafting system is across the board on MMO gaming forums still heralded as the best crafting system in an MMO to date.

For my part, I thought the actual mechanics of Crafting in SWG were nothing special, and that it was far too easy to "master" any particular skill. I think the real attraction of SWG's Crafting system was in the myriad items that could be created, and the freedom you had to place them inside your structures.

Well, I will agree to disagree with you on the "master" part of things as from my view part of that was making the "best" items on your respective server and only the players could determine that by them buying from you.

I also factor in their dynamic resource spawning system which required effort (not saying it was hard or easy) to find the right stat resources to maximize whatever trait you were going to punch on a given item. This I know due to the PA I ran in which my best bud was in the top 3 weapon crafters on the server and I was in the same bracket making Stim-Ds and other medical supplies.

Sure, the actual motions of making something were simple, and I feel that's as they should be. I hated (and stated it multiple threads in beta) EQ2's initial crafting system. Crafting shouldn't be a minigame. Developers need to spend less time trying to make gimmiky crafting and focus on the scope and utility of what can be crafted.

And SWG was a solid base on that principle in my view.

V'rel Vusoryn wrote:

No, I don't. They should allow for a myriad of ways that aren't area dependent and leave it up to players to figure them out.

I can't find a link right now, but I'm pretty sure Ryan intends to design the game so that only low-value, abundant resources are available in "secure" areas.

Although, I suppose there's still room them to do that and still not violate your principle.

As long as it allows the avenue for a player then it isn't broken in my mind. The real point is that I do not subscribe to the line of thought that being in a PvP area is more risk because of other players attacking you and so you should get "more" or "better". "Different" rewards, sure.

While it hasn't been done in a major MMO yet, AI can be programmed to be even tougher without "cheating" and thus an even greater Risk vs, Reward option.

There might even be a few players who could be such an AI too. But that number would be tiny.

Tyveil wrote:

why has it taken the industry so long to realize this?

...

Raph Koster and John Smedley tried to get back into a sandbox game with Star Wars Galaxies. It has brought them more pain than anything else they've ever worked on. When it failed (and it failed EARLY, long before they tried to fix it with things like the new combat system or new player experience), the rest of the industry figured that if those two guys couldn't make it work, it couldn't work.
...

As someone that was there for the whole ride I'll point out that it didn't "fail" which respect to the 200K plus subscribers (many of which had multiple subs). The game did not generate the millions of subs that World of Warcraft had and which from what I heard was a goal for SOE and LA, sure. Monetary fail for those two, okay.

That said in the realm of fun gameplay mechanics PFO would do well to take a few notes from SWG (pre NGE). There is a reason its crafting system is across the board on MMO gaming forums still heralded as the best crafting system in an MMO to date.

V'rel Vusoryn wrote:

The disgruntled want CCP to step in and introduce changes that will essentially funnel folks from High Sec to Low sec and Null.

There's a whole lot I don't know about that situation, so I'm going to refrain from offering an opinion. However, it does raise a question about how much leeway you think the game developers should have in something like placing the most valuable resources in Null-Sec space...

V'rel Vusoryn wrote:

The only thing I believe that should draw people out into PvP hot areas is their own desire to go there and partake in that kind of play.

Do you think it's okay for GW to design the game so that the only way to gain real wealth is to venture out into unsafe territory?

No, I don't. They should allow for a myriad of ways that aren't area dependent and leave it up to players to figure them out.